- #36
durant35
- 292
- 11
By observe do you mean observe with our eyes or that the photons that hit eliminate the possibility of a superposition?
durant35 said:By observe do you mean observe with our eyes or that the photons that hit eliminate the possibility of a superposition?
As long as one uses a classical description, there is no decoherence. Decoherence only appears if you regard everything as a quantum system with as description so complicated that no one ever can give it, and assume that this description is 100% accurate to the last detail of every atom of your cell phone, that its antenna responds to every single photon in the electromagnetic wave created by your provider, and that you try to predict the response of a transistor in you microchip to this photon, based on statistical mechanics.durant35 said:And if I'm not observing the object during decoherence, what am I observing since air photons etc hit the object while I'm looking at it. For instance my cell phone. I see it is black, rectangular and so on. It seems that decoherence is present all the time.
The system he refers to is the combined system, which is an a pure, entangled state. The "measurement" he talks about is that of a hypothetical observable of the combined system which has the pure, entangled state as one of its eigenstates.naima said:in that thread Atyy wrote:
"In an improper mixed state, each system is in the same pure state."
[bolding mine]A. Neumaier said:Now atyy apparently uses improper and proper synonymous with pure and mixed, while many others - e.g., http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0109146.pdf - use improper for a state that is prepared by mixing pure states, and proper for a state that appears as a restriction of a pure state of a bigger system to a subsystem (which usually results in a mixed state).
durant35 said:So we can conclude there are no macroscopic superpositions on a macroscopic scale? It seems bizarre and disturbing that any of us at the moment are for an instan both dead and alive like the cat.
durant35 said:It seems that decoherence is present all the time.
Yes, in fact this is how the density matrix is often introduced. But there seems to be something odd about it to me.stevendaryl said:Every density matrix can be decomposed into the form [itex]\rho = \sum_j p_j |\psi_j\rangle \langle \psi_j |[/itex]. Once you've done this decomposition, it can be interpreted as "The system is in one of the pure states [itex]|\psi_j\rangle[/itex], but we don't know which."
kith said:Yes, in fact this is how the density matrix is often introduced. But there seems to be something odd about it to me.
Suppose you create a proper mixture by mixing pure states. The resulting density matrix has the straightforward interpretation which you gave above.
Now let's change to a new set of state vectors [itex]\{ |\phi_i\rangle \}[/itex] which is disjoint with the old set and also satisfies [itex]\rho = \sum_i p'_i |\phi_i\rangle \langle \phi_i |[/itex]. Don't we now know for sure that our system isn't in any of these new states because we know that it is in one of the states we used for the mixing?
I understand now why i had a problem with atyy's sentences. the problem for me was in the words "system" and "subsysrem".stevendaryl said:I think I can explain Atyy's quote using a pair of entangled electrons:
I'm struggling a bit with circularity here. What you say doesn't work for reduced density matrices when the combined system is in an entangled state, does it? Because in case it did, Bell tests would be analogous to Bertelsmann's socks. So what you seem to be saying is that if we have a mixture which is not improper, we can assume it to be proper?stevendaryl said:My point is that if you just pick one way of writing it as a mixture of pure states and assume that it's a proper mixture, you won't run into any contradictions. That doesn't mean that it's true, only that it's safe to pretend it's true.
And different people will pretend different things. This is a very bad way of introducing subjectiveness into interpretations.stevendaryl said:My point is that if you just pick one way of writing it as a mixture of pure states and assume that it's a proper mixture, you won't run into any contradictions. That doesn't mean that it's true, only that it's safe to pretend it's true.
kith said:I'm struggling a bit with circularity here. What you say doesn't work for reduced density matrices when the combined system is in an entangled state, does it? Because in case it did, Bell tests would be analogous to Bertelsmann's socks. So what you seem to be saying is that if we have a mixture which is not improper, we can assume it to be proper?
I was talking about the reduced density matrices of the individual particles which can be written in this form.stevendaryl said:In the case of an entangled pair of particles, you CAN'T write the density matrix in the form [itex]\sum_i p_i |\psi_i\rangle \langle \psi_i|[/itex].
A. Neumaier said:And different people will pretend different things. This is a very bad way of introducing subjectiveness into interpretations.
kith said:I was talking about the reduced density matrices of the individual particles which can be written in this form.
Agreed. But then what are your objections to my post #46? My point was very similar to yours: that we cannot interpret the reduced density matrix of an entangled state as a proper mixture. So your answer to my question there seems to be yes.stevendaryl said:Both particles are observable in EPR, so tracing out one of the particles to get a reduced matrix for the other particle is throwing away information.
Every density matrix ##\rho##, and hence in particular yours, can be written in the stated form, by taking the ##\psi_i## as an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of ##\rho##. One gets mixed terms only if one insists on choosing a particular basis. In the case of a pure state, as in your example, the sum consists of a single term only.stevendaryl said:In the case of an entangled pair of particles, you CAN'T write the density matrix in the form [itex]\sum_i p_i |\psi_i\rangle \langle \psi_i|[/itex]. The state of an entangled pair is [itex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|U, D \rangle - |D,U\rangle)[/itex]. If you form the density matrix, you get:
[itex]\frac{1}{2}(|U,D\rangle \langle U, D| - |U,D\rangle \langle D, U| - |D, U\rangle\langle U, D| + |D,U\rangle\langle D,U|[/itex]
bhobba said:[This link] explains it clearly:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5439/1/Decoherence_Essay_arXiv_version.pdf
It is however technical. To understand it you must learn the technicalities.